35
International
Models in Science Education: Applications of Models in Learning and
Teaching Science.
1*
Funda Ornek
1
Balkesir University, Balkesir, TURKEY
* CorrespondingAuthor Email: fundaornek@gmail.com
Abstract: In this paper, I discussed different types of models in science education and applications of them in
learning and teaching science in particular physics. Based on the literature, I categorized models as conceptual and
mental models according to their characteristics. In addition to these models, there is another model called physics
model by the physics-education community. And then, I discussed applications of these models for learning and
teaching science particularly physics along with examples that can guide teachers and students in their science
courses.
Key words: Conceptual Development, Learning, Model-Based Learning, Physics Education, Science Education.
INTRODUCTION
What is a model?
In a general sense, a model is a representation
of a phenomenon, an object, or idea (Gilbert, 2000). In
science, a model is the outcome of representing an
object, phenomenon or idea (the target) with a more
familiar one (the source) (Tregidgo & Ratcliffe, 2000).
For example, one model of the structure of an atom
(target) is the arrangement of planets orbiting the Sun
(source) (Tregidgo & Ratcliffe, 2000).
The model can only relate to some properties
of the target. Some aspects of the target must be
excluded from the model (Driel & Verloop, 1999). For
example, the solar system model of the atom models the
nucleus surrounded by electrons but excludes the
delocalization of electrons, among other aspects. With
respect to physics, Hestenes (1996) describes a model as
a representation of structure in a physical system and/or
its properties. The system may consist of one or more
material objects. A model refers to an individual system,
though that individual may be an exemplar for a whole
class of similar things.
Models in Science Education
There are different types of models in science
education. To categorize them, we should look into
what makes them be considered different. For this
reason, we should understand the difference between
conceptual and mental models. Conceptual models are
devised as tools for the understanding or teaching of
systems. In addition to this, conceptual models are
external representations--socially constructed and
shared--which are precise, complete and consistent with
the shared scientific knowledge specially created to
facilitate the comprehension or the teaching of the
systems in the world (Greace & Moreira, 2000). On the
other hand, mental models are what people really have
in their heads and what guides their use of things
(Norman, 1983). Buckley et al. (2004) also viewed
mental models as internal, cognitive representations.
Based on the literature, conceptual models
include mathematical models, computer models, and
physical models which are discussed in the following
sections. In addition to these models, there is another
model called physics model by the physics- education
community. Physics models will be discussed later.
Categories of Models
In this section, I will discuss mental models,
conceptual models, and physics models respectively.
Conceptual models are mathematical models, computer
models, and physical models.
Mental Models
Mental models are psychological
representations of real or imaginary situations. They
occur in a persons mind as that person perceives and
conceptualizes the situations happening in the world
(Franco & Colinvaux, 2000). Norman (1983) indicates
that mental models are related to what people have in
their heads and what guides them using these things in
their minds. In order to understand mental models, their
characteristics should be considered.
Mental models have a variety of features
(Franco & Colinvaux, 2000). These are:
1) Mental modelsaregenerative.
2) Mental modelsinvolvetacit knowledge.
3) Mental modelsaresynthetic
4) Mental modelsarerestrictedbyworld-view.
Before explaining each of these features, one
example regarding mental models from Vosniadou and
Brewers (1992) study, which probes elementary school
International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 2008, 3 (2), 35 45
ISSN 1306-3065
2008 by Gokkusagi Ltd. All RightsReserved
International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 2008, 3 (2), 35 45
36
students understanding of the Earth, its shape, and the
regions where people live, can be helpful for
understanding mental models. In the study, students
were asked some questions to find out their mental
models of the Earth, its shape, and the regions where
people live. During these interviews with students, they
were also asked to use drawings. Some of the questions
were what is the shape of the Earth? If you were to
walk for many days in a straight line where would you
end up? To answer these questions, students needed to
refer their previous experience and knowledge to create
their mental models.
According to the results of their study, various mental
models were found as shown in Figure 1.
- Thespherical Earth model: Theearth isa spherewith
peoplelivingall aroundit on theoutside.
- Theflattenedspheremodel: Theearth isa spherebut
flattenedat thepoles, or a thick pancake.
- Thehollowspheremodel: Theearth isa hollowsphere
with peoplelivingon flat groundinsideit or it ismade
of twohemispheres, thelower oneon which peoplelive
andtheupper onewith theskylikea dome.
- Thedual Earth model: This includes two earths, a
roundoneupin theskyanda flat, solidandsupported
earth--thegroundwherepeoplelive.
- ThediscEarth model: Theearth presentssamefeatures
asin therectangular earth model; onlydifferenceisthat
theearth isshapedlikea disc.
- Therectangular Earth model: Theearth appearsasa
flat, solid, supportedobject shapedlikea rectangle.
I will now go back to describing the features of
mental models using these childrens models as
examples.
1) Mental models are generative (Franco &
Colinvaux, 2000): This means that people or students
can produce new information and make predictions
while they are using mental models. For example, in
Vosniadou and Brewers study, they asked questions
such as if you walked for many days in a straight line,
where would you end up? Is there an end or an edge to
the earth? When students said yes for the latter
question, the asked further questions such as can you
fall off that end or edge? Where would you fall? These
questions make students become creative because they
cannot observe these phenomena. According to
students earth models, for example, the disc, the
rectangular, and the dual earth models show that earth
has an edge or end from which people can fall off. Also,
the hollow sphere model has an edge, however people
live inside, and it is not possible for people to fall off
(Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992).
2) Mental models involve tacit knowledge
(Franco & Colinvaux, 2000): The person who uses a
mental model is not completely aware of some aspects
of his or her mental models. In general, students have
some presuppositions about physical or any other
phenomena. These are really implicit. They are not
conscious and people do not think about them, but
rather they use them for reasoning. One example will
explain this aspect of mental models. From Vosniadou
and Brewers study (1994), in the disc and rectangular
models of earth, students have presuppositions that the
ground is flat. This presupposition is implicit, but it can
be made explicit through their drawings.
3) Mental models are synthetic (Franco &
Colinvaux, 2000): Mental models are simplified
representations of the target system which can be a
phenomenon or event. That is, they cannot represent
the complete phenomenon or event. What is meant by
representation? A representation is never a complete
reproduction of what is being represented but, requires
conscious or unconscious selection of what aspects will
be represented and what other aspects will be left out of
the representation (Franco & Colinvaux, 2000). In
order to develop a representation of a target, some
aspects are isolated to make some kind of
simplifications.
4) Mental models are constrained by
worldviews (Franco & Colinvaux, 2000): People develop
and use mental models according to their beliefs. In
other words, a set of limitations forms the possible
mental models which people use. Above, students
mental models about earth models formed and
developed according to their presuppositions. For
instance, students build the disc and a rectangular model
of earth from their presupposition which is the earth is
flat. Moreover, for the dual earth, hollow sphere, and
flattened earth models, they had the presupposition
which is the ground on which people live is flat, but
earth is round. Therefore, the earth mental models
according to students mental models are constrained by
Figure 1. Earth Models (Vosniadou, 1994)
International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 2008, 3 (2), 35 45
37
presuppositions, also used as misconceptions (Franco &
Colinvaux, 2000).
Conceptual Models
A conceptual model is an external
representation created by teachers, or scientists that
facilitates the comprehension or the teaching of systems
or states of affairs in the world (Greca & Moreire, 2000
and Wu et al., 1998). According to Norman (1983),
conceptual models are external representations that are
shared by a given community, and have their coherence
with the scientific knowledge of that community. These
external representations can be mathematical
formulations, analogies, graphs, or material objects. An
example of an object could be a water pump which is
sometimes used to model a battery in an electric circuit.
An analogy can be established between an atom and the
solar system. The ideal gas model is a mathematical
formulation (Greca & Moreire, 2000). To come to the
point, we can say that conceptual models are simplified
and idealized representations of real objects,
phenomena, or situations.
Since mathematical models, computer models,
and physical models are external representations, they
will be discussed in the following sections under
conceptual models.
Mathematical Models
A mathematical model is the use of
mathematical language to describe the behavior of a
system. That is, it is a description or summarization of
important features of a real-world system or
phenomenon in terms of symbols, equations, and
numbers. Mathematical models are approximations.
They do not always yield what is actually measured. A
simple example is "F=m*g". If we want to express the
gravitational forces on a falling ball exactly, we must
consider the force between each possible pair of atoms
and sum the vectors. F=m*g yields a value that is close
enough to use in most situations. F=m*g only works
for millions of molecules (like a baseball) close to the
surface of the Earth. It does not work for a single
molecule because we need to consider interactions with
other molecules.
Mathematics provides one of the powerful
tools for modeling and solving problems in science and
other areas. For instance, in chemistry, and physics, we
use mathematical techniques to model situations and
solve problems (Hodgson et al., 1999).
Burghes and Borrie (1979) described
mathematical modeling as the way in which real-world
problems are translated into mathematical models and
also, how the results can be applied to the real-world
situations. In other words, it is the application of
mathematics to Science, Physics, and many other fields.
The process of mathematical modeling can be
summarized in figure 2.
The left side (boxes 1, 6, and 7) represents the
real-world. The right side (boxes 3 and 4) represents the
mathematical-world. The middle part (boxes 2 and 5)
represents the connection between the real and
mathematical worlds. In the middle part, the problem is
first simplified and converted into mathematical
language and later, the mathematical solution is
translated back into the real world.
Generally, in mathematical modeling, the
setting up of the problem, qualitative validation, and
qualitative prediction sections are important before
starting to solve the problem.
Related to this explanation in terms of
mathematical modeling, here is an example about how
to use mathematical modeling to solve a physics
problem. In this example, the way in which problems
are translated into mathematical models and also, how
the results can be applied to the real-world situations are
shown (Burghes & Borrie, 1979).
Example: Critical angle for shot putters: A shot
putter lays great emphasis on a smooth build up of
speed across the throwing circle and this enables him to
accelerate the shot in a straight line up to the point of
release. But at what angle should he aim to release the
shot, and does it make a significant difference to the
distance thrown?
For an initial model, it can be assumed that the
motion is two dimensional as shown in Figure 3.
We can suppose that the shot leaves with
speed at angle to the horizontal, and assuming
constant gravity and no resistive forces, we have the
usual equations of motion which give the horizontal
range as
R
v
g
=
2
2 sin
.
For maximum R, sin2 should be equal to 1
which gives the critical angle =45. Therefore, for our
Figure 2. Mathematical Modeling (Burghes&Borrie, 1979)
International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 2008, 3 (2), 35 45
38
mathematical model, the optimum projection angle is
45. So, the range becomes
R
g
=
2
.
Besides this, we made other assumptions. For
example, we can assume that the shot can be considered
as a point particle. We can neglect air resistance, also,
we can assume that the shot is projected from the
ground level y=0. Even though this model has some
limitations, we can have some conclusions. For instance,
the putter makes an error of the critical angle by 10%;
therefore he/she throws it with
495 .
. The range
becomes
R
g g g
= = =
2 2 2
2 459 99 099 sin( * . ) sin .
.
So, having the angle of
495 .
results in 1%
decrease in the range. From this, we can conclude that
the model says that critical angle is not significant. That
is, its effect is not much. It is more significant that the
putter would increase his/her projection speed. For
example, when he/she increases 5% in speed which is
going to increase from to 1.05, the range will increase
10%. According to the definition of Burghes and Borrie
(1979), this example is a mathematical modeling because
it shows the usage of the real-world problem how to
achieve the best throw- and translates it to a
mathematical problem by formulation of a mathematical
model. So, the shot putter had his best throw after this
problem was solved by using mathematical model.
As a result, when we go back to the
mathematical modeling process, we can ask whether
these conclusions agree with real-world experience or
not. The British shot putter, Geoffrey Capes is reputed
to achieve his best throws at a projection angle of
approximately
55
, and is represented
AE W =
.
This energy principle is for only one particle. The energy
principle for a multiparticle system is
AE W E E E U
system external forces system
= = + + + , ( ...)
1 2
E E
1 2
, ,..
are the particles energies in the
system. U is the potential energy of interacting particles
in the system. The important difference between the
particle work-energy relation and the multiparticle
energy principle is the potential energy U related to
interactions inside the system.
The angular momentum principle: The rate of
change of the angular momentum of a particle relative
to a location is equal to the torque applied to the particle
about that location. This is
d L
dt
r F
net
= =
. The
angular momentum principle for a multiparticle system
is
d L
dt
tot
net external
=
,
which is the rate of change of
the total angular momentum of a system relative to a
location,
L L L L
tot
= + + +
1 2 3
...,
is equal to the net
torque due to external forces exerted on that system
relative to the location.
As was mentioned before, these fundamental
principles are applied to predict or explain the behavior
of the system.
In physics modeling (Chabay and Sherwood,
1999), the following process is followed:
Start fromfundamental principles
Estimatequantities
Makeassumptionsandapproximations
Decidehowtomodel thesystem
Explain / predict a real physical phenomenon in thesystem
Evaluatetheexplanation or prediction
In summary, physics modeling is analysis of
complex physical systems by means of making
conscious approximations, simplifications, and
International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 2008, 3 (2), 35 45
43
idealizations. When students make approximations or
simplifications, they should be able to explain why they
make them. For instance, in modeling a falling ball, in
general, air resistance is neglected. So, there is no force
contribution from air resistance. While students do
neglect it, they should be able to have reasons for this.
As an example of modeling, consider the calculation of
the acceleration of a block is pulled to the right with a
force F as shown in the following Figure 9.
To analyze this system, we should start with
the momentum principle,
=
net
F
dt
p d
. Because of
friction between the table and the block, there is
frictional force,
f
in addition to the force, F; pulling the
block. So, the total force is
F F f
net
=
.
From the momentum principle,
d p
dt
F F f
net
= =
.
So,
=
dt
p d d mv
dt
m
dv
dt
ma F f
( )
= = =
from this,
it can be concluded that the block moves a constant
acceleration which is
a
F f
m
=
.
In these more traditional physics courses,
students use constant acceleration to solve a problem
instead of developing their own models. Constant
acceleration is a mathematical model which is already
defined for them. They do not bother to think about air
resistance or friction. They are taught to select an
equation to solve the problem. Moreover, even though
students neglect friction or something in the system with
respect to conditions, they do not do it consciously.
The following example shows how to make
use of physics modeling to explain a real-world
phenomenon, which can also be considered as a physics
problem.
An amusement park ride (Chabay & Sherwood,
2002, p106): There is an amusement park ride that some
people love and others hate in which a group of people
stand against the wall of a cylindrical room of radius R,
as the room starts to rotate at higher and higher angular
speed (Figure 10). When a certain critical angular
speed is reached, the floor drops away, leaving the
people stuck against the whirling wall. Explain why the
people stick to the wall without falling down. Include a
carefully labeled force diagram of a person, and discuss
how the persons momentum changes, and why.
Starting from a fundamental physics principle
which is the momentum principle in this situation, we
can determine the known forces and draw the force
diagram (Figure 11). In Figure 11, the person shown has
a mass m and moving in the z direction. Because of its
gravity, the earth exerts a force mg which is downward
(-y). The wall exerts a friction force which has a y
component +f because the person is not falling, and x
component
F
N
normal to the wall because the
persons momentum is changing direction. The vertical
component f of wall force is a frictional force. If the
wall has friction which is too low, the person will not
stick to the wall. So,
f F
N
s
( is the coefficient of
friction). has a value which ranges between 0.1 to 1.0.
The angular speed should be enough large.
There is momentum change inward; if the net
force were zero, the person would move in a straight
line. From circular motion (no change in y direction),
and the momentum principle, we can find
N
F
to show
why the people stick to the wall without falling down.
Circular motion with constant
= p p
Figure 9. Pulling a Block (Chabay & Sherwood, 2002)
Figure 10. An amusement Park Ride (Chabay &
Sherwood, 2002, p106)
Figure 11. Physics Diagram of the Person. At this
Instant the Person is Moving in the -z Direction
International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 2008, 3 (2), 35 45
44
Combining the above two equations,
F p f mg
p mv m
d R
dt
m R F p m R
N
N
= =
= = = = =
and
,
2
Thus, using
f F
N
s
, we can
find
2
2 2
), (
gR
g
w R mw mg
> s
. The smaller the
friction, the higher the angular speed needed. When the
frictional force is smaller than the gravitational force,
people cannot stick to the wall and slide down. For this
reason, the angular speed has to be large enough to
make the frictional force greater than the gravitational
force.
SUMMARY AND FINAL
CONSIDERATIONS
The emphasis of this paper lies on the
discussion of different types of models and application
of models and modeling with respect to the teaching
and learning science particularly physics. These are
mainly mental models; conceptual models, which are
mathematical models, computer models, and physical
models; and physics models.
The goal of this paper concerning different
types of models in science education is to help teachers
and students in order to learn how to use and choose
models in their courses. Also, the most important aim is
to make that students can be actively engaged in
understanding and learning the physical world by
constructing, using, or choosing models to describe,
explain, predict, and to control physical phenomena
(Wells et al., 1995). So, students do not need to
memorize course materials or equations for their
courses. They can obtain them by using models. From
my experience with students who were taking an
introductory physics course at Purdue University,
students indicated that they can understand better
concepts, the meaning of all equations, and how to
obtain those equations in physics by using physics
models. The following quotation explores students
thoughts about physics models.
Student: theres more to just physics than
memorize this humongous block of equations the
teacher says works. Uh, and plugging in the numbers
and knowing how to put the equations together. Were
going back and- well we can- were really creating a
model of this system and we can, you know, get rid of
these factors because the gravitational pull is here is
really not going to effect how me jumping off a chair is
going to do anything. So what we can neglect even
though there really is a force there its small enough that
we dont have to. Just kind of learning about physics in
a very organized- and going back to elementary steps
manner (Spring 2005).
As a result, models provide an application of
the knowledge to real world situations-made to see how
things apply in the real world instead of just looking at
equations. In other words, helped students learn and
understand physical phenomenon.
REFERENCES
A Physical Model of the Solar System (n.d.). Retrieved June
15, 2005, from (http://csep10.phys. utk.edu/
astr161/lect/).
Buckley, B. C., Gobert, j. D., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P.,
Tinker, R. F., Gerlits, B.,Wilensky, U., et al. (2004).
Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogica:
What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we
know? Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 13, 23-41.
Burghes, D. N. & Borrie, M. S. (1979). Mathematical
modeling: A new approach to teaching applied
mathematics [Electronic version]. Physics
Education, 14, 82-86.
Burghes, D. N. (1980). Teaching applications of mathematics:
mathematical modeling in science and technology.
Innovation and Developments, 365-376.
Chabay, R. W. & Sherwood, B. A. (2002). Vol I: Matter and
interactions: Modern mechanics. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Chabay, R. W. & Sherwood, B. A. (1999). Bringing atoms into
first-year physics [Electronic version]. American
Journal of Physics, 67, 1045-1050.
Czudkov, L. & Musilov, J. (2000). The pendulum: A
stumbling block of secondary school mechanics.
Physics Education, 35, 428-435.
Driel, F. H. V. & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers knowledge of
models and modeling in science. [Electronic
version]. International Journal of Science Education,
21, 1144-1153.
Franco, C. & Colinvaux, D. (2000). Grasping mental models.
In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing
models in science education (pp.93-118). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J. & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning
models in science education and in design and
Technology education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J.
Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science
education (pp.3-17). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Greca, I. M. & Moreira, M. A. (2002). Mental, physical, and
mathematical models in the teaching and learning of
physics [Electronic version]. Science Education, 1,
106- 121.
Greca, I. M. & Moreire, M. A. (2000). Mental models,
conceptual models, and modeling. [Electronic
d p
dt
F f mg p
dp
dt
d p
dt
p
N y
y
=< > = =
=
,( ),
,
0 0 0 , so
p=p
International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 2008, 3 (2), 35 45
45
version]. International Journal of Science Education,
1, 1-11.
Hestenes, D. (1996, August). Modeling methodology for
physics teachers. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education,
College Park, MA.
Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics
instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55, 440-
454.
Hodgson, S. M., Rojano, T., Sutherland, R. & Ursini, S. (1999).
Mathematical modeling: The interaction of culture
and practice [Electronic version]. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 39, 167-183.
Holland, D. (1988). A software laboratory. Dynamical
modeling and the cellularmodeling system. SSR, 407-
416.
Jimoyiannis, A. & Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in
physics teaching and learning: A case study on
students understanding of trajectory motion
[Electronic version]. Computers & Education, 36,
183-204.
Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models.
In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental
models (pp. 7-14).Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Scherer, D., Dubois, P., & Sherwood, B. (2000). VPython: 3D
interactive scientific graphics for students.
Computing in Science and Engineering, 82-88.
The solar system. (n.d.). Retrieved June 15, 2005, from
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect.
Tregidgo, D. & Ratcliffe, M. (2000). The use of modeling for
improving pupils learning about cells. School
Science Review, 81, 53-59.
Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the
earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood.
Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585.
Vosniadou, S. (1994). In mapping the mind. In S. A. Gelman
& L. A. Hirschfeld (Eds.), Universal and culture-
specific properties of childrens mental models of
the earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, M., Hestenes, D., & Swackhamer, G. (1995). A
modeling method for high school physics
instruction [Electronic version]. American Journal of
Physics, 63, 606-619.
IJESE
ISSN: 1306 3065